megamitenseifandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Gotou vs. Gouto (disambiguation)
I think it's fairly apparent that Gouto and Gotou are unlike in pronunciation, and that pages like this are unnecessary. BLUER一番 20:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC) :Bull, I put a lot of work into this. It's better than putting (did you mean) crap at the top of a page. It's not a question of whether they seem different (which they really don't) ...but what someone might type in a query. Besides, if you want to undo all the work I did (which will really piss me off) then you really have too much time on your hands... --Yksehtniycul 20:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC) ::No need to be so angry ^^; ::The information is all necessary, true, but the way the info is handled seemed a bit too... complicated(?) Seems like it's such a big deal to create one whole disambiguation for two terms that are explicitly different in pronunciation, and really when the two terms are explicitly for two different subjects altogether *shrugs* BLUER一番 20:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC) ::Plus, while I'm not 100% sure there are other things referred to the term Gouto/Gotou in the series, why don't we create them once we find one? This article would be much more necessary by then. BLUER一番 20:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC) :::First off, it took me a lot of time, so back off... second off, if I'm trying to find info on any "Goto" in the wiki, I never remember where double vowels are in a Japanese word, and I'm going to type in any of those three and hit Go, and bottom line I would rather end up on this disambiguation page 20times than the odds of hitting the wrong page (and not knowing exactly where the right page is) ...plus search algorithms don't give two shits about the similarity of such words. Anything as far as I'm concerned is better than putting "this is so and so, if you meant such and such, then blah blah blah", at the top of any page. --Yksehtniycul 20:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC) :::PS: The delete template should not be used without very clear grounds. Use it after considerable discussion. It's very offensive, not something to use casually. I'm angry because I don't have time for this (on top of helping the wiki along much less)--Yksehtniycul 20:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC) ::::And As far as I'm concerned every instance of a double vowel should have redirects whenever possible, and every term that would be a synonym with the double vowels removed should have disambiguation pages. The goal is to make a wiki both and convenient and educational. --Yksehtniycul 20:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC) ::::First off, I understand how you feel. I worked with wikis for years and occasionally I got my articles and files deleted and removed - I know the feeling. ::::Secondly, I don't know about getting the right term in an instant; but when it comes down to it, it's really your own personal feelings against something already practiced in most wikis. There's nothing wrong with a note saying "This is about the General, you may be looking for the Cat" or "This is about the Cat, you may be looking for the General"; both still contain the link to the article you're looking for. ::::Thirdly, the use of the deletion template is clear - it is meant to invoke discussion on a deletion, it's not a death warrant for goodness sakes XD lol 'BLUER一番' 20:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC) :::::The deletion template is huge and scary, and I don't see why discussion won't do... and I don't think detailed wikis like this should always work like a general wiki like wikipedia. What works for wikipedia (or another wiki) doesn't always make sense in different types of wikis. We're already doing things differently, and on top of that I would add, that pages not have crap at the top of the page, other than for incomplete articles. Of course I'm also thinking about how things would look at digitaldevildb.com, which btw Google has finally started indexing at a reasonable rate (however though that might effect my enthusiasm for a push, it doesn't effect my judgement.) --Yksehtniycul 21:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC) ::::: ^BTW: Need I remind you, that deletion template is a whole lot of crap at the top of a page.--Yksehtniycul 21:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC) ::::::Personally, I don't see how we're so different than wikipedia the way things are being directed right now. It seems we're doing fact tags now - nothing wikipedia never did. ::::::Ah, well I'll just leave you to the machinations ^^. 'BLUER一番''' 21:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC) :::::::Dunno about any "machinations"(?) but I just added the "citation needed" template because I'd love to see the citations (Ie. you could change it to print "citations wanted" if you want)--Yksehtniycul 21:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)